This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:20 pm
After recently looking at an old Bamboo Bomber instrument panel I have, I found the radio call tag on it, 37888. This corresponds to 43-7888, a C-78 contract converted to UC-78B models for the AAF. It is confirmed by the painted Cessna construction number 5408 I found on the rear. This aircraft was never released from service, having been based at Marana Army Air Field and crashing at Vail Auxiliary Field. I'm looking for a photo of this particular aircraft. If not available, I'd like a photo of a Marana Bobcat. Here are photos of the panel. Note a few interesting things- the yellow painted line around the blind flight instruments, the radio call plate, and the green color (not black as some people believe). Thanks, and enjoy!
http://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02330.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02331.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02332.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02333.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02334.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02335.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02336.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02338.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02339.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02340.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02341.JPGhttp://www.forgottenfield.com/amg/airframe/DSC02342.JPG
Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:45 pm
I don't know if it was in the same producation batch, but Jack Kosko's UC-78 is 43-7523, or possibly 43-7555. The Cessna c/n on the frame's dataplate of 5043 corresponds to 43-7523, but the data plate on the instrument panel says 37555. We don't have any pictures of it in USAAF service as of yet.
Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:16 pm
I noticed a placard on t he panel shown in the photos...basicaly it says if the ac s equipped with wooden props there should be no more than 3 people on board.
I wonder if it was limited like that from the facory or whether it was an AD (or service bulletin or whatever the USAAF called them back then)?
Seems odd if from the factory...three people in a twin woould not have been viable to commercial owners, so I'm guessing that civil models had metal propls.
From what I understand, the 450 AT-17s and UC-78C & Ds had wooden propls.
Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:31 am
A friend emailed me, and mentioned it was in the operating instructions in the manual. He also mentioned this:
the three persons maximum with wooden props was due to the poor single engine performance with the wood props that could not be feathered in case of an engine failure. Although the 2B20 props installed on some also could not be feathered, they could be placed in high pitch which was some help and the prop on the working engine could be set to take off to maximize the power from the working engine.
The bobcat was NOT a five place airplane with the wood props
Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:24 pm
Post-Korean war my father received his multi-engine rating in surplussed Twin Cessnas. He said the one they used for dual instruction was equipped with wooden props and the one that was used for the checkride had constant speed props. This would have been 1954/55 time period.
Chris...
